How Infant Baptism Relates to … Part 2
In this adult Sunday school class, Pastor Albert N. Martin continues his exposition on infant baptism, focusing on its incompatibility with the biblical teaching regarding the declaratory significance of baptism. He argues that leading paedobaptist theologians acknowledge baptism as a public confession of faith, yet the practice of infant baptism inherently lacks this. Martin then critiques three paedobaptist attempts to introduce declaration into infant baptism—sponsorship, confirmation, and dedication—demonstrating their lack of biblical warrant and their tendency to foster formalism within the church, ultimately leading to apostasy. He concludes by warning Baptists against adopting similar 'confirmation mentalities' that could undermine the purity of the church.
Topics
Outline 9 sections · 53 min
- Introduction and Review of Baptism's Significance 0:00
- Paedobaptist Recognition of Baptism's Declaratory Nature 4:03
- The Ludicrous 'Silent Confession' and Transubstantiation Analogy 13:06
- Three Paedobaptist Methods for Vicarious Declaration 17:37
- Critique of Sponsorship and Vicarious Faith 23:19
- The Interconnection of Sponsorship and Confirmation 32:30
- The Method of Parental/Church Dedication 37:03
- Pastoral Concern: Formalism and the Ruin of the Church 42:17
- Warning to Baptists and Concluding Prayer 51:28
Key Quotes
“Baptism serves as our confession before men. Indeed, it is the mark by which we publicly profess that we wish to be reckoned God's people, by which we testify that we agree in worshiping the same God in one religion with all Christians, by which finally we openly, affirm our faith.”
“The difficulty on this subject, is that baptism from its very nature involves a profession of faith. It is the way in which, by the ordinance of Christ, he is to be confessed before men.”
“Now, you see, that, although it may sound absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous, that is the flip side of transubstantiation. You follow that?”
“Suppose, I set before you an infant and ask you whether when he grows up he'll be a chaste man or a thief. Your answer doubtless will be, I cannot tell. And whether he in that infant age has good or evil thoughts, you will say, I don't know.”
“And what it does is it brings into the church, not now into some quasi-baptized member status, but now into full participatory status, full communicant status, those who have as their distinguishing trait that they are simply decent and orthodox. And there is a big difference between being decent and orthodox as your distinguishing trait and being saved. You can be decent and orthodox and be lost.”
“Revival is when the formalists, or worse, the heretics and the indecent, get saved.”
Applications
All listeners
- Beware of establishing a way of life conducive to formalism, which ultimately ruins the church.
- Do not assume children are Christians until they prove otherwise; always press the need for conversion, repentance, and belief.
- As believers in confessor's baptism, we ought not to have an unconverted church or a church made up of formalists, but rather a church made up of converted people with a personal, vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ.
- Beware as Baptists not to run into the confirmation mentality, as formalism will destroy our second generation just as it would any paedobaptist church.
A full transcript is available on the tab. 81 paragraphs, roughly 53 minutes.
Introduction and Review of Baptism's Significance
This adult Sunday school class was held on September 25th, 1983, at the Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey. Now let's once again pray and ask for the Lord's blessing upon our study this morning.
Our Father, as we come again into your presence, again we ask for your assistance, for your grace and enabling. We pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten our minds, that he will make ready our hearts, that we may receive your holy word and that we may profit from these considerations. We pray that in everything our spirit and demeanor may glorify your holy name and that we would do everything in such a way as to be pleasing to Christ. For we pray these things in his name. Amen.
Now I notice several faces that I don't recognize, perhaps some here for the first time this morning. And in the light of that, a very brief word of review would be in order. We have been considering together the subject of infant baptism, seeking to show from the scriptures that this practice is totally unwarranted in the light of the word of God. And attempting also, because of the somewhat formidable arguments put forward by those of the Reformed and Evangelical persuasion who practice infant baptism, seeking to deal with the subject thoroughly and especially in the light of those arguments which are so often presented in favor of that practice. And we began our study by considering infant baptism and the biblical teachings. And we began the study by considering the teaching respecting the subjects of baptism, and now we are concerned with our second major unit of thought, infant baptism as it relates to the biblical teaching respecting the significance of baptism. And a couple of weeks ago we went through the major passages in the New Testament
which explicitly described the significance of baptism. And we saw that the Bible clearly teaches that baptism means that our Hollywood show is never going to end. This is not an experiment, this is not a test, this is not a trial. There goes another struggle.
This is not a death trial. This is not a trial. This is not a trial. has a dual or two-fold significance.
First of all, baptism is a symbolic action, and secondly, baptism is a declaratory action. In that event of baptism, there is, according to the Bible, both symbolism and declaration. Then the last two weeks, I believe, or last week, I forget now how many times it's been, we considered infant baptism as it relates to the symbolism of baptism. And we saw, first of all, that the major evangelical and paedobaptist traditions fully agree and support the biblical teaching regarding the symbolism of baptism, and then I attempted to show that the practice of infant baptism is totally incompatible with the biblical teaching concerning the symbolism of baptism. Now, this morning, our concerns will be with the declaration dimension of baptism. Baptism is not only a symbolic act, it is also a declaratory act. It is symbolism which relates to the party baptized, and it also involves declaration on the part of the party who is being baptized.
Paedobaptist Recognition of Baptism's Declaratory Nature
We saw that baptism symbolizes the application of redemption to the one who is being baptized, and also the declaration is, with respect to salvation, that the person who is being baptized declares openly his repentance toward God and his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a declaration which has reference to sin on the one hand, and sin is commandment, confessed and repudiated, and also a declaration which focuses upon Christ on the other hand, both a negative and a positive, that Christ is confessed and that the person baptized identifies himself or herself with Christ and his determination to be obedient to Christ in all that the Lord Jesus has commanded. Now, with respect also to this dimension of baptism, what I would like to do is to show two things follow the same basic outline. First of all, to assert that many of the leading Pato-Baptist writers, theologians, recognize and assert and affirm the clear biblical teaching
with respect to the declaratory significance of baptism. And then, secondly, to attempt to show, and I hope convince you, increasingly, that the clear biblical teaching is completely incompatible with the practice of infant baptism. All right, let's begin with grandpappy John Calvin, who is, of course, at the bottom of much of modern-day Pato-Baptist thought. The whole argument from the covenant very largely comes from Calvin.
He's had a tremendous impact upon evangelical Pato-Baptist polemic ever since his time. Now, John Calvin very clearly recognizes and asserts that baptism is a declaratory action. Notice on, and this is from section 4-4-15-13 on page 1313 of the Battles edition. John Calvin cáiм κorer Bات comer as our confession before men.
Baptism serves as our confession before men. Indeed, it is the mark by which we publicly profess that we wish to be reckoned God's people. You see that? Indeed, it is the mark by which we publicly profess that we wish to be reckoned God's people, by which we testify that we agree in worshiping the same God in one religion with all Christians, by which finally we openly, affirm our faith.
Now, is that true of infant baptism? Is that what happens in infant baptism? Does baptism serve as the infant's confession before men? Indeed, is it the mark by which the infant publicly professes that the infant wishes to be reckoned God's people?
Indeed. Is it that by which the infant testifies that the infant agrees in worshiping the same God in one religion with all Christians? Is it indeed that by which the infant finally and openly affirms his faith? Is that what happens in infant baptism?
Same question we put last week. Yes or no?
You see, John Calvin clearly, clearly recognized the declaratory significance of baptism. It's too patent upon the surface of the New Testament to miss it. And it's clearly affirmed and asserted in the appropriate place in the Institutes. The question is, is that indeed truly what happens in infant baptism?
Also, Charles Hodge, the systematic theologian, recognizes that this is indeed, indeed, a difficulty. The very problem that I'm suggesting on page 546 of Systematic Theology. He introduces the subject of infant baptism with this very problem on page 546 of Volume 3 in his Systematic Theology. Under the matter of infant baptism, he begins as follows.
The difficulty on this subject, is that baptism from its very nature involves a profession of faith. It is the way in which, by the ordinance of Christ, he is to be confessed before men. You follow that? It is the way in which Christ is to be confessed before men.
Now, naturally, he sees that this raises some problems with the matter of infant baptism. If that's true, if it's true that baptism involves in its very nature, in its very nature, not as something which is peripheral or incidental, but it is something which is attached to the very nature of baptism, that it involves a profession of faith.
And that it is the way in which Christ is to be confessed before men. Now, is that true of infant baptism? Does it involve the infant's profession of faith? Is it the way in which the infant confesses Christ before men?
Now, that's a problem. And Hodge recognizes that it is a problem. He says, But infants are incapable of making such a confession. Therefore, they are not the proper subjects of baptism.
With that, we agree. Hodge, however, would not agree. Nevertheless, he recognizes the problem and introduces his whole discussion of infant baptism with a clear statement of this very issue. So, I trust that I said enough at the outset to let you know that I'm not kidding, nor am I misquoting, nor am I distorting the teaching of the Pado-Baptists, their leading authors and lights, when I say that they recognize very clearly and they state it very plainly that baptism involves in its very nature a public declaration. A confession of Christ before men. And it would be as difficult to eradicate that strand from the Pado-Baptist writers, the evangelical writers, as it would be to eradicate it from the Bible. Now, having said that, I come then to the second point, is that this clear biblical teaching, which is recognized by many of the Pado-Baptists themselves, this clear biblical teaching, concerning the declaratory significance of baptism, is incompatible, incompatible
The Ludicrous 'Silent Confession' and Transubstantiation Analogy
with the practice of infant baptism. Now, there are various ways and methods by which our Pado-Baptist brethren seek to circumvent this problem and in which they attempt to somehow involve a declaration operation with their ordinance of infant baptism. Now, what's his name? Yes, let me turn around a second. Paul K. Jewett, in his book, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, suggests that the most direct route to the solution of this problem would be simply to assert. Now, no one, no paedo-baptist does this, so you must recognize, but that the most direct route would be simply to assert that while the infant is being held in the minister's arms during the ceremony of infant baptism, that the infant silently and imperceptibly confesses his faith in Christ. And that though we cannot hear it, yet the confession,
is indeed being made, and God can hear it. Now, you see, that, although it may sound absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous, that is the flip side of transubstantiation. You follow that?
And I'm surprised, in a sense, that the Roman Catholics have not come up with this, because that is exactly and precisely the flip side of transubstantiation. What is transubstantiation? The idea, that the bread actually and really becomes the body of Christ, and that that which is in the cup actually and really becomes and turns into the blood of Christ. Well, it smells like wine, and it tastes like wine, but no matter if it smells and tastes like wine, even though it still retains the properties of wine, it is really not wine.
It is the blood of Christ. And that is the flip side of transubstantiation. You follow that? That is the flip side of transubstantiation. You follow that?
The blood of Christ. And it smells like bread, and it tastes like bread, and it feels like bread, and it looks like bread, but that doesn't matter. Even though it smells like bread, and feels like bread, and tastes like bread, and looks like bread, that's no obstacle to our faith. It is not bread.
It is the body of the Lord. You see, now that's the mentality of transubstantiation. Well, someone who is determined to believe that something, is what it isn't, that something becomes what it doesn't, someone who's determined to believe that can teach anything that he likes. So if you can have bread that becomes the body of Christ, but tastes like bread and looks like bread, and if you can have wine that becomes the blood of Christ, but continues to taste like wine and look like wine, why can't you have an infant make a confession that nobody can hear? Why not? Sure you can. You can have an inaudible confession, just like you can have bread that's really supposed to be the body and blood of Christ. So it's conceivable as the flip side of transubstantiation and the ultimate perversion of the sacrament to assert that though we can't hear it, though we don't notice the lips moving, we don't hear any words coming out, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. The confession is being made.
Though we can't hear it or see it, nevertheless, it's real and that's no obstacle to our faith that the infant doesn't understand English and that the infant's lips are not moving and we don't hear any words. No matter. The confession has been made. Well, thankfully, evangelical paedo-baptists do not teach this. Do not teach this any more than they teach transubstantiation.
Three Paedobaptist Methods for Vicarious Declaration
So don't impute that to any of our brethren. I'm simply saying that would be the simplest and most direct road from A to B. Now, of course, none of our paedo-baptist evangelical brethren are prepared even to put one foot upon that road or that insane method. Nevertheless, there are more indirect routes from A to B, which our brethren are prepared to place their feet upon. And there are three of them. Three ways to get a declaration of faith into an action which fundamentally contains no declaration of faith on the part of the infant. First method is the whole matter of sponsorship, or what is called a vicarious declaration. That is, someone else declares the infant's faith for him or her.
Someone else. else prior to the baptism actually makes a declaration of the infant's faith for them. The infant cannot declare it for themselves, but someone else can declare the infant's faith for them. And so the first method that has arisen is the method of sponsorship.
The second method is, well, I'll put the word in quotes because some people would object to the use of the term, but we'll come back to that later, is the second method that's used is confirmation.
And the confirmation idea is simply to set up a span of time between the symbolism and the declaration.
And this occurs in infancy, and this occurs at puberty. That's the confirmation approach. So we do have a declaration, and that the overall action must be viewed as a unity with the child's youth in the middle. And you start with the symbolic dimension in infancy, and you finish with the declaratory dimension at puberty.
And that declaratory dimension is called confirmation by some. Others very much dislike the term confirmation because it reeks of medieval Roman Catholicism. And so they replace it with the terms public profession or other terminology, right? And the third method, and sometimes more than one of these things goes together, the third method is what you could call dedication, in which the issue is not so much the child's declaration as it is the declaration on the part of the church and on the part of the parents.
So it is not. The child who makes the declaration in conjunction with baptism, it is the church, and it is the child's parents which make the declaration of their faith, namely their intention to dedicate this child to the Lord and to raise this child in the fear and admonition of the Lord. And so it is this which is declared in conjunction with the action of infant baptism. So, there are three methods, sponsorship, confirmation, and dedication.
And with these three things in various ways, shape, or forms, there is an effort on the part of paedo-baptist brethren of all stripes to bring the declaratory significance into conjunction with their practice of infant baptism. And that is why, you see, you have godparents. And that is why you have confirmation, or let's say catechism classes, or whatever you want to call it, that end in a special event in which the child makes its own public declaration. And then you also have dedication.
That is where those ideas come from. The driving force to them is to recognize and to give concrete and practical implementation. And that is why you see you have godparents. You recognize and to give concrete and practical implementation.
You act as if you've embraced a concept of baptism that слишком tới asked us, what can I get for my child? They're probably acclimated to a system of planoid madness, where sometimes they're trying to findanson to make themselves see marriage through the absolute fact that baptism can occur just as spoon-pasta-like you go to an engagement in the Using of Time process, to be going back to what you created here. And you can't get acquired into these systems. This is what boat boat destiny is, as you see.
Critique of Sponsorship and Vicarious Faith
of vicarious faith. He says on page 176 and following of his book, the uneasy conscience behind the defense of paedobaptism reveals itself at this juncture. Many paedobaptists have been reluctant to affirm that the New Testament order of faith, then baptism, is simply to be set aside in the case of infants. To help the mind over this problem, they have suggested the notion of faith by proxy. And this idea antedates the Reformation by many centuries and was simply appropriated by Protestants, especially Lutherans and Anglicans. Its origins are in the same historical development that made infant baptism the common practice in the New Testament. The Church. It will be recalled that the first descriptions of baptismal
procedure preserved for us from antiquity are couched in language suitable only to those who are able personally to confess their faith. After the pattern of the New Testament, the candidate renounced the world, the flesh, and the devil, and embraced Jesus Christ as Lord. Soon after that, the evidence appears for infant baptism in the usage of the Church, etc. And then he quotes from something that comes from A.D. 215, the formulary for baptism. The formulary reads, and they shall baptize the little children first, and if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer for someone from the family. Here we have the seed of vicarious faith, a seed for which time proved a fertile soil.
If the child were too young to confess his faith, then someone had to confess it for him. Because in any case, where baptism does not play a role, but that he was baptized, it is. baptism is administered, faith must be confessed. Now, this novel idea that the mute ignorance of infancy can find a compensation in the confession of a stand-in, though it developed unchecked, did not go unchallenged. As late as the fifth century, Boniface, the Bishop of Rome, troubled by those who could not see the reasonableness of sponsorship in baptism, wrote the great Augustine a letter in which his own skepticism is thinly veiled. And I don't know how much time I should take, but Boniface really puts his finger on the issue in the letter to Augustine, and Augustine's answer is unbelievable. But in any event, I'll just read to you some of the sections from Boniface's letter that Jewett quotes. Suppose, I set before you an infant and ask you whether when he grows up he'll be a chaste man
or a thief. Your answer doubtless will be, I cannot tell. And whether he in that infant age has good or evil thoughts, you will say, I don't know. Since you therefore do not dare to say anything, either concerning his future behavior or his present thought, what is the meaning? That when they are brought to baptism, their parents, as sponsors for them, may answer and say they do that of which their infant age is not able to think. For we ask those by whom they are presented and say, does he believe in God? And the sponsor says, he does believe. I entreat you, give me a short answer. I don't know. And whether he in that infant age is not able to
think. What is the most regular question that you would be未 to ask? Or is the answer such in such a manner of faith that you do not urge me the customariness and I want the only way of loved happiness but because you allow me the only reason for good things? Don't tell me that any of these questions would be consistent.
As the sacrament of Christ's body is after a certain fashion Christ's body and the sacrament of Christ's blood is His blood, so the sacrament of faith is another after faith is faith, and to believe is nothing else but to have faith. And so, when an infant that has not yet the faculty of faith is said to believe, he is said to have faith because of the sacrament of faith, and to turn to God because of the sacrament of conversion. For that answer belongs to the celebration of the sacrament. He has faith because of the sacrament of faith. He's converted because of the sacrament of conversion. In other words, he has the reality which that sacrament symbolizes, and that's the sense in which he said to have it. But wait a minute. Wait a minute. How can he have it?
Before he's baptized, if he has it in that sense. The declaration was to come first. How can that be the answer? How can it be said that he has faith because he's received the sacrament of faith when Boniface is asking, how can the parents say he believes in order that he may be baptized? There's no answer. And, of course, Jewett, recognizes the inconsistency in this approach. Then he goes on to describe this matter, and the development of this whole matter of godparents throughout the Middle Ages. As for the sponsors, it appears that originally, who were these original sponsors in the early church? They were the ones responsible for preparing the catechumens for baptism.
Catechumens were people who had made public profession, who were being instructed in the things of God that they might then enter into the number of the disciples. They were not those who had been baptized in infancy. But when the practice of infant baptism became generally established, the role of the sponsor shifted, and they became spiritual mentors of the child responsible for his doctrinal and moral training after his baptism.
In keeping with this usage, the thought developed that the natural parents had, by their act of bringing him to baptism, transferred the child to those who were qualified to train him in things divine. These sponsors then became his spiritual parents, his godfather and godmother. As time went on, sponsorship evolved into a tangled order. Sponsorship evolved into a tangled order. Sponsorship evolved into a tangled order. Sponsorship evolved into a new web of inanities. The theory of spiritual affinity, for example, led to the rules of the Middle Ages forbidding parents to sponsor their own children. And he goes on to discuss, and then its impact upon Anglican and Lutheran churches, and then its continued impact upon the reformed churches. history the matter of sponsorship the idea of god parents that someone fundamentally confesses
The Interconnection of Sponsorship and Confirmation
the child's faith for them and then this is intimately connected with what comes next sponsorship and confirmation and to show you the intimate connection between sponsorship and confirmation i would like to quote from the anglican prayer book as it is quoted by jewett the anglican book of common prayer and it says this now this then has to deal with confirmation to the end that children being now come to years of discretion and having learned what their god fathers and god mothers promised for them in baptism they may they may they may they may themselves with their own mouths and consent openly before the church ratify and confirm the same and also promise that by the grace of god they will endeavor moreover themselves faithfully to observe such things as they by their own confession have assented to and then the bishop puts this question to the cantor
and
and and and and and and which your godfathers and godmothers then undertook for you. See the point? And that's the intimate connection between confirmation and sponsorship.
In sponsorship, the godparents declare the child's faith and they confess it. And then at confirmation, generally done, generally done, not exclusively, but generally done at puberty, at this point, then these questions are put to the child after a time of instruction as to whether or not they then confirm, hence the term confirmation, they themselves personally confirm that which was declared for them at their baptism. In other words, they then make their own public confession. And there is an intimate connection, there is an intimate connection between the declaration of the sponsors made in their stead, in their infancy, and the declaration of the children themselves made at their puberty. There is this intimate connection. Through that span of youth, say maybe 12 years, then there is this connection between the two. Now this is recognized, again, by one of the known Paedo-Baptist authors of our day who says, and I quote,
Child baptism is a complete baptism only when one regards the confession of faith, which follows upon a finished period of instruction as belonging to such baptism as its final. This declaration belongs to this baptism as its final act. Now I'm not asserting that all evangelical Paedo-Baptists believe this, I'm simply telling you the way in which Paedo-Baptists have attempted to incorporate this declaratory significance into their practice of infant baptism. So the second way is through this matter of confirmation.
The Method of Parental/Church Dedication
All right, then, the final method is what is called dedication. Dedication.
And in this approach, it is the parent's faith which is declared. Namely, their faith and intention and commitment to train this, this child, in the ways of God. And I would assert that this is found in Marcel's book, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, on pages 219 and 220. And it is also found in the baptismal formula.
This is back on page 56, right after the Canons of Dort. Not, no, this is not the Westminster. Now, this is the Psalter book of the Dutch Reformed Churches.
The liturgy with respect to baptism,
after statements are made concerning the basis upon which they understand baptism to take place, then as part of the liturgy for the practice of infant baptism, right at the event, this is what the Dutch Calvinists do, as many of you, no doubt, are well aware.
You have, so I'm sure you've heard this many times, but some of us have never heard it,
an exhortation to the parents. Now, this is something that I assume, and I'm sure it is, is read in conjunction with baptisms. They read through this liturgy. This is what they read.
This exhortation to the parents.
Beloved in the Lord Jesus Christ, you have heard that baptism is an ordinance of God, to seal unto us and to our seed his covenant. Therefore, it must be used for that end, and not out of custom or superstition. That it may then be manifest that you are thus minded, you are to answer sincerely these three questions. So the parents have questions put to them at the baptism of their children.
And in the answering of those questions, the parents make the following declaration. First, whether you acknowledge that although our children are conceived and born in sin, and therefore are subject to all miseries, yea, to condemnation itself, yet they are sanctified in Christ, and therefore, as members of his church, ought to be baptized. The parents are to answer yes. Secondly, whether you acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and which is taught here in this Christian church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation. Yes. Thirdly, whether you promise and intend to see these children when come to the years of discretion, whereof you are either parent, or witness, do you intend to see these children instructed and brought up in the aforesaid doctrine, or help or cause them to be instructed therein to the utmost of your power? Answer,
yes. Having said this, the minister then says, I baptize so-and-so infant in the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit. Then comes the prayer of thanksgiving. Almighty God and merciful Father, we thank and praise you that you have forgiven us and our children all of our sins through the blood of your Son, and received us through your Holy Spirit as members of your only begotten Son, and adopted us to be your children.
And sealed and confirmed the same unto us by holy baptism, etc. We and our children have been forgiven all of our sins. That's the prayer. And in conjunction with the baptism, this is publicly said to God in thanks. So those are the ways in which a declaration is brought into this matter.
Pastoral Concern: Formalism and the Ruin of the Church
Now, of course, there are other ways in which a declaration is brought into this matter. Of course, none of this has any biblical or scriptural warrant whatsoever, either in the practice of circumcision or in the biblical teaching with respect to baptism. You do not find one shred of teaching concerning sponsorship, confirmation, dedication, tied up with the matter of baptism in Christ. Now, part of my deepest pastoral concern about this whole system, if not the deepest of all, comes right here with respect to this whole matter of declaration. Because the best of men who teach this are therefore susceptible to establishing,
a way of life which is conducive to the practice and institution of formalism, which is then unto, ultimately, the ruin of the church. And that is my concern about all of this. And I could give time for questions. I'm sure some of it has been confusing to you, but I just want to close with underscoring this pastoral, concern. What do I mean by formalism? How in the world does what we've said today encourage formalism in the churches? Well, formalism is basically this. It's the idea that if you are orthodox and decent at puberty, that then you are entitled to full communicant membership in the church of Jesus Christ. If you are orthodox and decent at puberty, then you are entitled to full communicant membership in the church of Jesus Christ. Now, Charles Hodge, on pages 492 and 493 of
Systematic Theology, opens up that this is not simply a straw man, but states very clearly exactly what are the usual qualifications identified with confirmation or with the public confession of faith. And on pages 492 and 493, these are the things that he opens up. Orthodoxy and decency. In other words, the whole emphasis of everything that we've seen has been upon the fact that the child must be simply instructed, so that when the child is instructed, then it is assumed that he is able to confess his faith for himself. You see, when they begin to speak about all of this being together as one complex, which begins at infancy and which culminates at puberty, then it's assumed it's taken from the church of Jesus Christ. And so, when they begin to speak about all of this, for granted, it is presumed that in the vast majority of the cases, those who are presented for baptism and infancy will also be presented for their public confession and catechizing or confirmation at puberty. It's assumed the vast majority who experience this initiatory dimension also experience this culminating dimension.
In other words, there is no guarantee that because a child at age 12 has been catechized and can give orthodox answers to questions and lives a basically decent life, at that point, that that child is a Christian. And what it does is it brings into the church, not now into some quasi-baptized member status, but now into full participatory status, full communicant status, those who have as their distinguishing trait that they are simply decent and orthodox. And there is a big difference between being decent and orthodox as your distinguishing trait and being saved. You can be decent and orthodox and be lost.
And I venture to say, with all of this emphasis upon the child having its sins forgiven, with all of this emphasis upon positively assuming that everything is there, never pressing the need for conversion. Now, by and large, I know there are exceptions to this in spite of all the inconsistencies, but never pressing the need for conversion, for changing, repenting. Believing upon the conscience of the child, assuming that it's there until they prove by their indecency or by their heresy that they're not Christians, assuming that they are until they prove they're not. Then they come to age 12, the vast majority of them, because of the common grace of a Christian home and the receptiveness of a childlike mind, they come to that age, they receive the catechization, and they live a decent or at least a quasi-baptized life. And then they're assumed to be Christians and received into the fellowship of the Church of Christ. Now, this is formalism, and this is the ruin of the churches, because when you begin to have churches whose congregations are made up of people who are not really saved, but just decent and orthodox, it will not be long.
It will not be long before the orthodox. It will not be long before the orthodox. It will not be long before the orthodox. It will not be long before the orthodox.
It will not be long before the orthodox. The orthodoxy turns into heresy, and the decency turns into indecency, and they'll still be in the church.
And I dare to assert that that is precisely what has happened in every major paedobaptist denomination in the United States of America. And I also dare to assert that this is the reason why some godly paedobaptists are so concerned with the matter of revival. You know what revival is, by and large, in paedobaptist churches? Revival is when the formalists, or worse, the heretics and the indecent, get saved.
That's what happens. Revival is when God comes upon them and saves them.
But the church, wonderful, blessed be God, but we, as those who believe in confessor's baptism, ought not to have an unconverted church in the first place. We ought not to have it. We ought not to have a church made up of formalists, in need of a mighty reviving by the work of the Spirit. We ought to have a church made up of converted people, who have more than simply orthodox doctrine and a decent moral lifestyle,
but who have a personal, vibrant, living relationship with Jesus Christ.
And if that were the criterion upon which people were received into the membership of the church, I frankly doubt that there would have been this. Romantic and, what should you say, almost obsession interest, on the part of some of our dear godly brethren, with the whole matter of revival. Because apart from that, apart from a mighty outpouring of the Spirit in the midst of a climate of formalism or heterodoxy, there is a built-in force to apostasy. And that is how paedobaptism, with its, all of its, with its, all of its, accoutrements, creates a driving force, most of the time, wherever it is. Now I know that there are some people who refuse to practice this business. And, and say, well I don't care if we lose the vast majority of our children, we refuse to bring them to communicant membership until such time as we're convinced that they're really saved. And there are some people, believe it or not, who are prepared to do that in spite of all the logical pressures, inconsistencies, and everything else with their system.
Warning to Baptists and Concluding Prayer
I say, more power to them. Live with it. Live with the inconsistency, rather than bring formalism into your church. And we need to beware as Baptists, brethren.
We need to beware that we do not run into the confirmation mentality. Because if we get into that mentality, formalism shows there's no respecter of persons. Formalism will destroy our second generation just like it would be glad to destroy any paedobaptist church. Be glad to do the same destructive work for us.
When we begin, if and we ever begin, to practice baptism upon those grounds. Well, may the Lord be pleased to preserve us from these things, to write his word upon our hearts. I know that there are some who have questions. I'm sorry our time is gone.
I would be glad to entertain them. Let's pray. Our God and Father, we give you thanks for your holy word. We thank you that it is a lamp to our feet.
We pray, Father, that by your grace you would preserve us and our brethren from the awfuls and ravages of formalism. We pray, O God, that you would keep our churches pure. Enable us by your grace to be determined to do everything in our power to preserve your holy church from everything that would seek to ruin it. We pray these things in Jesus' name.
Amen.
This transcript was generated by automated speech recognition and may contain errors. It is provided for study and reference only; the audio recording is the authoritative source.
More from the archive